george h. mead on punitive justice

8/13/2019 George H. Mead on Punitive Justice

1/14

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Publications of Aliated Faculty: Nebraska PublicPolicy Center

Public Policy Center, University of Nebraska

1-1-2005

GEORGE HERBERT MEAD ON PUNITIVEJUSTICE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF

CONTEMPORY PCTICESElizabeth NeeleyUniversity of Nebraska Public Policy Center

Mary Jo DeeganUniversity of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub

Part of the Public Policy Commons

is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Public Policy Center, University of Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

- Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications of Aliated Faculty: Nebraska Public Policy Center by an authorized administrator of

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Neeley, Elizabeth and Deegan, Mary Jo, "GEORGE HERBERT MEAD ON PUNITIVE JUSTICE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OFCONTEMPORY PCTICES" (2005).Publications of Aliated Faculty: Nebraska Public Policy Center. Paper 14.hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub/14
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicycenter?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/400?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub/14?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub/14?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/400?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicycenter?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicyfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fpublicpolicyfacpub%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/14

GEORGE HERBERT ME ON PUNITIVEJUSTICE CRITIC L N LYSIS OFCONTEMPOR RY PR CTICESElizabeth NeeleyUniversity Nebraska Public Policy enterMary Jo DeeganUniversity Nebraska LincolnR FL XIV ST T M NT

We are committed to advocating social justice and find Mead a rich theorist foranalyzing and developing responses to crime in America. The contemporaryadoption o punitive justice in the criminal justice system exhibits all the flawsthat Mead identified in 1918. Here we document that Mead s perspectiveremains viable and points to the need for a more progressive response to crime.In fact we argue that Mead s perspective parallels a current movement incorrections, knows as Restorative Justice.INTRODUCTIONAlthough George Herbert Mead is widely recognized as an authority on socialinteractions between the s l and the other see Blumer, 1969; Cook, 1993; ewey 1931; Habennas, 1987; Lewis and Smith, 1980; MiUer 1973, 982), hisanalyses connecting the s l to society, politics, social issues, and socialamelioration are not as well recognized for exceptions see Campbell, 1992;Deegan, 1988, 1999, 2001; Joas, 1985; and Feffer, 1993). As a result o manyscholars emphasis on a micro-sociol ogical approach to Mead, hisgroundbreaking analysis o crime and justice is often overlooked for anexception see Garland, 1990). We argue here that the critique o punitive justicedeveloped by Mead in 1918 remains viable and demonstrates the need for a moreprogressive response to crime.

We begin by presenting Mead s general theory and then quickly moveto his analysis o crime andjustice. 2 Although Mead did not specifically addressall the flaws which currently characterize the punitive justice system, hisarguments establish the foundation for our contemporary critique. Morespecifically, Mead s perspective is used to examine: the dramatic increase inprison populations, the gross over-representation o minorities, the increasedincarceration o youth, high recidivism rates, and the increased privatization andindustrialization o prisons.

Neeley & Deegan in Humanity and Society (February 2005) 29(1).

Copyright 2005, Association for Humanist Sociology. Used by permission.


3/14

72 Humanity and Society, Volume 29, Number 1, February 2 }05ME D S GENER L THEORY

Mead s book, ind el fnd o iety (1934), establishes the social nature of theself, thought, and community as a product of human meaning and interaction,Each person becomes human through interaction with others, and institutionalpatterns are learned in communities dependent on shared language and symbols,Human intelligence is vital for retlective behavior, and social scientists have aspecial responsibility to help create democratic decision-making and politicalaction, especially in urban society. The scientific model of observation, datacollection, and interpretation, and reconstruction is fundamentally a humanproject and the needs of humankind should guide the path of human inquiry.Sociologists can learn to take the role of others and develop social responses toshape and reflect community values (Deegan, 1988; for a more extensive reviewof Mead s bibliography see Cook, 1993).

Mead (1934) defined the sel as a social structure that emerges fromhuman interaction and the meanings assigned to it. Each person is taught themeanings for behavior, and each person, in turn, teaches it to others. Thisprocess involves more than simply learning behavior; it involves the entireperson in the process of becoming human. Being a member of society is an ongoing social process. Actors have the capacity to learn and create new meaningsfor behavior throughout their lives.ME ON CRIME NI JUSTICE

Mead s general perspective on pragmatism and criminality is classicallyillustrated in his article, The Psychology of Punitive Justice (1918), where heexamines the process and relations of punishment as a response to criminalbehavior. Here he emphasizes democratic solutions to reforming the institutionof criminal justice as a means of reconstructing society.

Mead begins by outlining his basic assumptions about the social natureof society (1918). According to Mead, our fundamental instincts create anorganized form of social conduct (the expected conduct of the individual in thegroup), and, although most human behavior is learned through the other , innatedrives exist. One of these fundamental impulses is what Mead refers to as thehostile attitude . When the self has a flawed understanding of the other (whatMead refers to as a flawed self the negative instinct of hostility can emergethrough violence, hate and criminal acts. A flawed self can be the result of anumber of different barriers in the connection of the self, other and society (i.e.an inability to take the role of the other, an inability to inhibit hostile emotions,an inability to connect actions and consequences, etc).




4/14

Elizabeth NeeleyMiuy1 DeeganSO I L RE ONSTRU TION THE S L

According to Mead, a successful response to crime is one which works toreconstruct a flawed self. How can the reconstruction of the individual selfaddress the fundamental problems of crime and inJustice? For Mead, crime isnot a steady state. By changing criminals through the reconstruction of the selfwe can change the nature of crime and society. Both Mead and his Chicagocolleagues Jane Addams (1910, 1930) and John Dewey (Campbell, 1992)assumed that achieving an integrated/reconstructed self occurred throughspecific behaviors and interactions resulting in a changed consciousness. 3 Thefirst s tep was to take the at titude of the other into the self. l f the self has aflawed understanding of this process it can be learned through refonning orreconstructing the self, commonly called rehabilitation.T PUNITIV RESPONSE

Mead (1918) analyzed why a punitive approach is appealing yet unsuccessfuLTheoretically, a punitive system of justice is appealing because it achievesretribution (criminals should suffer in proportion to their crime) and prevention(the certainty of being sentenced to prison will deter crime). Perhaps the greatestbenefit of a punitive systemofjustice, however, is the solidarity it creates withinsociety. Similar to the solidarity of the nation in times of war, the commonvalues which uni te people against the criminal creates 'the most favorableconditions for the sense of group solidarity because in the common attack uponthe common enemy the individual differences are obliterated' (Mead, 1918,p.580).

Punitive jus ti ce is maintained by the idea that justice is served byimpartial enforcement to protect the individual interests of the common good.Recognition of this community response to common danger brings a personal'responsibili ty to obey and support the law and its enforcement ' (1918, p.584).Respect for the law, based on the protectionofthe interests of the common good,means that when crime occurs a personal enemy becomes a public enemy, andpunitive justice becomes the public's weapon of defense and attack.T L WS PUN T V JUSTI E

According to Mead, a successful response to crime is one which works toreconstmct a flawed self. A punitive system ofjustice inhibits the reconstructionof a f lawed self by calling out the hostile attitude of the public. According toMead the public 's host ile att itude demands ' retribution, repression, andexclusion. These [responses] provide no principles for the eradication of crime,




5/14

Humanity anti Society, Volume 29, Number 1, Fehl11ary 2005[or] for returning the delinquent to normal social relations Mead, 1918, p.590 ,T hi s excl usi on d ec re as es the likelihood t ha t individuals will reintegratesuccessfully into society and perhaps perpetuates their deviance.Mead 1918) identifies several additional flaws in a punitive system ofjust ice. First, efforts are made to reform individuals rather than the socialconditions creating social problems illiteracy, crime, poverty, addiction, and soon). For Mead, the reconstruction of the s lf occurs in a broader context than theindividual; The test of success of this s lf lies in the change and construction ofthe social conditions which make the s lf possible 1918, p.602).

For Mead, the juvenile court was one of the first examples of successfulrefonn the criminal justice system. I The background of the juvenile, includingan assessment of his or her mental and physical condition, was presented incourt, and institutions other than jails reinstated the child into full socialrelations. Mead felt that It is in the juvenile court that we meet the undertakingto reach and understand the causes of social and individual breakdown, to mendif possible the defective situation and reinstate the individual at fault Mead,[918, p.594). However, even with a fuller presentation of social conditions, asis provided in the juvenile court, society fails to address the causes of crime. AsMead explained: We demand a juvenile court with extraordinary powers andeven then it is recognized that as a court this new institution is helpless and tlltilein meeting the proposed causes from which so called juvenile crime must springMead, 2 1 p.67).

Third, Mea d reco gn ized that the pu ni tiv e j ust ic e syst em generatesstigma for offellders, or a flawed identity see also Goffman, 1963). Althoughstigma has the positive function of serving as a f on n of social control whilecreating solidarity, its deterrent effect comes at a high price. The hostile attitudeof the criminal calls ll t a hostile response from the public through stigma, andthe rebellious individual is exiled from the group and excluded from all of therights a nd privileges associated with the group Mead, 1918). As labelingtheorists today recognize, exclusion is not conducive to the reconstruction of aHawed s lf and my even strengthen a flawed identity.

Finally, just as Mead 1999; 2001) recognized the lack of reform in theeducation system as serving capitalist interests to socialize young workers, manycapitalist goals, suppOlied by the government, characterize punitive justice. Ina word, the municipality has become a business body operating for the benefit ofthose that make it up, an d is therefore not different in principle from any stockcompany Mead, 1899, p.367). In the s ame way, Mead recognized that theg ov ernme nt is also su sc ep ti bl e to ec on omic interests, whi ch may partiallyexplain the lack of assertiveness by the government to make refonns.




6/14

Eliza.beth Neeley Mary Jo DeeganPUNITIVE JUSTICE TODAY

75

The United States criminal justice system is based on the public ideals ofretribution and even more so, prevention, claiming that tougher sentences willboth deter crime within the criminal and others. While a punitive system mayarguably a ch ie ve r et ri but io n, s pe ci fi c e xa mi na ti on of th e i nc reases inincarceration (Austin and Krisberg, 1985; Justice Policy Institute 2002; Mauer;2001) and the high rates of recidivism throughout the country (Bureau of justiceStatistics, 2002) demonst ra te that the goal of prevention is unfulfilled andineffective. The reconstruction of the self, which Mead suggested would happenunder a successful approach to cr ime (1918), is seldom attempted. In fact,reconstruction of the self is arguably retarded by incarceration s incapacitatingefforts. As more funds are appropria ted to handle new inmates, less money isinvested in rehabilitation Austin and Krisberg, 1985). The criminal justicesystem instead limits crime by warehousing criminals in prisons. There isconsiderable scholarly debate as to whether and to what extent incarcerationimpacts crime rates (Levitt, 1996; Marvel and Moody, 1994; Zimring and Block,1997).

The flaws that Mead (1918) identified with punitive justice-society shostile response to crime as an individual rather than a social problem, the failureto ameliorate th e causes o f crime, the s tigma attached to criminals, an d thecapitalist ideology that underlies th e system-continue to characterize thecriminal justice system. These flaws, however, appear in ne w forms: th edramatic increase in prison populations (Justice Policy Institute, 2002; Mauer,2001), the gross over-representation of minorities (Gordon, 1999; Irwin, Austinand Baird, 1998; Justice Policy Insti tute, 2002; Mauer and Huling, 1995), theincreased incarceration o f youth (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 2000;Mauer, 2001; Taylor, 2000), high recidivism rates (Bureau of justice Statistics,2002), and the increased privatization and industrialization o f prisons (Gordon,1999; Hammond, 2000; T 1l1z 1996; Young, 2000). Although these specificflaws were neither predicted nor specifically addressed by Mead, we extend hisarguments here to critique them.SOCIETY S TENDENCY TO BLAME THE INDIVIDUAL

Evidence that socie ty blames th e individual ra the r than exammmg andaddressing th e social conditions which generate crime is perhaps best illustrated the steep increase in the number of individuals incarcerated (Mauer, 2001).The United States prison populat ion increased from 502,000 to 2.1 mill ionbetween 1980 and 2000. In fact, with only 5 o f the world s population, theUnited Sta tes imprisons around 25 of the world s inmates (Justice Policy




7/14

76 Humanity and Socie.ty, Volume. 29, Number 1 February 2005Institute, 2002). The fact that so many of our Nation's citizens are incarceratedleads one to wonder why crime if often framed as an individual rather than asocial problem. Then again, by incarcerating the homeless, the unemployed,those addicted to drugs, and those who are illiterate, the United Stated issomewhat successful at masking the social conditions which promote crime(Gordon, 1999).

Although the prevailing attitude is that the law is administered in anunbiased and even-handed fashion, racial and ethnic minorities appear to disproportionately affected by the imprisonment binge. For instance, whileblacks constitute only 13 of the entire United States population they comprisearound 50 of the inmate population (Justice Policy Institute, 2002).Unfortunately, the steep increase in the incarceration rates of minorities does notlead to social or systemic inquiry or refonn. Instead, researchers show that manypeople characterize African Americans as violent and criminal (Steffensmeier,Ulmer and Kramer, 1998). They perceive crime as a minority problem andignore the social conditions which may induce crime; namely, poverty, limitededucational opportunity, and discrimination (Gordon, 1999; Irwin, Austin, andBaird, 1998).

Unfortunately, the earlier strides Mead identified with the juvenilecourts are now at risk. Incarceration now characterizes juvenile justice (Austinand Krisberg, 1985; Mauer, 2001; Taylor, 2000). The historical improvementsmade by the United States to separate juveniles and adults within the justicesystem also appears to be reversing, as changes in juvenile justice policyincreasingly blur the distinctions between children and adults (Bazemore andUmbreit, 995; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 2000). In fact, 'as legalresponses to juvenile crime have become progressively more punitive so havethe number of juveniles in criminal (adult) court' (Taylor, 2000, p2). Theincreased detention of juveniles is of serious concern because 'the whole point ofthe juvenile justice system is to head off adult criminality' (LeadershipConference on Civil Rights, 2000, p.37).FAILURE TO AMELIORATE THE C USES OF CRIMEStates' primary response to rising incarceration rates has been capacity expansion(building new facilities, renovating older facilities or by amending capacitylimits to allow more inmates per cell) (Austin and Krisberg, 1985). The UnitedStates' strategy of reducing crime by focusing on individuals may actually beworking against itself. By pumping more and more money into corrections, wemay be 'significantly curtailing the funding of education, healthcare and othervital services' (which may have far more to do with public safety and crime ratesthan increasing prison populations) (Irwin et al., 1998, p. 33). National statistics




8/14

Elizabeth Neeley&Mary Jo Deegan 77support this assertion. The average annual increase in corrections spending from1985 to 1996 was higher than spending increases in health, education, publicwelfare, and natural resources (Bureau of Justice Stat istics, 1996). In fact, theJustice Policy Institute reports that between 1980 and 2000, corrections' share ofstate and local spending grew by 104 , while higher education's share of stateand local spending declined by (Justice Policy Institute, 2002).STIGMAThe stigma associated with being incarcerated has dire consequences and inhibitsthe reconstruction of a flawed self. sTerry (2000) explains, the stigmaassociated with crime and/or criminals, reinforces difference from and separationbetween offenders and the community. The we vs. they mentality that stigmagenerates reinforces fear of crime and criminals. Heightened fear then translatesinto policies which further separate offenders from society (maximum securityfacilities, longer sentences, stricter legislation) (Mauer, 2001; Terry, 2000).In fact, the stigma associated with incarceration continues to punish offenderseven after they have served their time . For instance, felons are restricted fromobtaining certain professional licenses; individuals convicted of drug charges arenot eligible for student loans, and felons in many states are politicallydisenfranchised for life Mauerand Chesney-Lind, 2002). These policies act assubstantial baniers to offenders attempting to re-establish themselves with thecommunity.

Stigma not only decreases the likelihood of successful reintegrationwith the community, it may also increase the l ikelihood of recidivism (Terry,2000; Williams and McShane, 1999). As Taylor (2000) explains:

the results of involvement in the system for the youth whoengage in the problematic behaviors often include feelings ofvictimization, stigmatization, and diminished status. Ratherthan integrate and conform many of the youth re-offend andbecome further eruneshed in the system (Taylor, 2000, p. 2).

CAPITALIST INTERESTSThe punitive justice system's focus on incapacitation ratherthan on preventativeaims exacerbates the flaws identified by Mead, especially in relation to capitalistpolicies and practices. Two prime examples of capitalism's hold on punitivejustice r the recent patterns of prison privatization and industrialization. Theseexamples are profitable to owners of the means of production, but do little toaddress crime.




9/14

78 Humanity and Society, Volume 29 Number 1 February 2005PRIV TIZIN PRISONS

The recent burgeoning o prison populations has legitimized the privatization oprisons (Mauer and h e s n e y ~ L i n d 2002). Though historically outlawed toprotect prisoners from exploitation and abuse, the practice o private ownershipo incarceration facilities is now on the rise (Hammond, 2000; Mauer and

h e s n e y ~ L i n d 2002; Tomz, 1996). In fact, Gordon (1999) reports that privateprisons have multiplied at four times the rate o expansion o public prisons.

The corrections industry, moreover, is very lucrative, providing newincentive for imprisonment (Hammond, 2000). 'In arrangements reminiscent othe convict lease system, federal, state and county governments pay privatecompanies a fee for each inmate which means that private companies have astake in retaining prisoners as long as possible, and in keeping their facilitiesfilled' (Gordon, 1999, p.153).PRISON RS S XPLOIT WORK RS

Another trend in the United States' corrections system is increasedindustrialization (Hammond, 2000; Schlosser, 1998; Terry, 2000; Young, 2000).This trend also serves capitalist interests as prisons contract out inmate labor inorder to produce a profit. From 1980 to 1994, while the prison population in theUnited States increased by 358 , prison industry sales soared from 392 millionto 1.31 billion (Ehrlich, 1995, p. 3 .

Advocates argue that prison industrialization is in the public's bestinterest, stating that prisoners are only taking jobs that the general public wouldnot want. Advocates also argue that i private industries did not employ cheaplabor, the price o goods would increase for consumers. Additionally, for thoseinmates who do makemoney by working, this income is taxable, thereby slightlyincreasing the Nation's tax base.

Opponents, however, argue that thousands o public sectorjobs are lostto prison labor, especially within the textile and automotive industries (Young,2000). Opponents also argue that the coercive nature o recruiting inmate laborhas been identified as a form o modem slavery (Gordon, 1999; Young, 2000)and that inmate jobs do not develop marketable skills (Needles, 1996), therebyincreasing the difficulty for former prisoners to reintegrate into society.

The exploitation o inmates' labor increases their anger, hostility andseparation from the larger community. Low-wage, unskilled labor is also asource o stigma which limits the enjoyment o human work and thedevelopment o a sense o accomplishment through one's labor. prison inmatesdevelop a sense o self that is undervalued in the marketplace, then earningcapital through criminal acts can be more attractive (Finn, 1998; Willaims andMcShane, 1999).




10/14

E.lizabeth Neeley Mary o Deegan OR PRO R SSIV R SPONS RIMThe flaws identified by Mead (1918) demonstrate the need for a moreprogressive response to crime. As it stands now, the current justice system ischaracterized by punitive goals rather than a genuine concern with re-connectingthe offender with the community in an attempt to correct a flawed self. Ratherthan organizing and responding : crime through a hostile response (punitivejustice), Mead recommends responding with a reconstructive attitude byreconnecting the offender with the community (1918).

Although a full analysis is beyond the scope of this article, a currentmovement in corrections, known as Restorative Justice, is compatible withMead s vision. Under a restorative model, communities work with the justicesystem to create an environment conducive to reconstructing the flawed self.This is accomplished by removing the stigma attached to offenders (Christie,2000); involving the victims of the offense in the reparation of harm in order tohelp offenders take the role of the other and help them to connect their actionswith consequences (Brookes and Sturt, 1998; Christie, 2000; Zehr, 1990); and bystrengthening bonds between offenders and community members (Bazemore,1998).

Restorative jus tice practices take many forms (victim-offendermediation, conferencing, circles, victim assistance, ex-offender assistance,restitution, community service, etc.) and are used as a response to crime undermany different circumstances (Bazemore, 1998; Brooks and Sturt, 1998;Christie, 2000; Taylor, 2000). Although restorative justice is not always anappropriate response to every crime and flawed self, Mead would agree that it isparticularly effective for youthful offenders who are still developing their senseof self. Most applications of restorative justice practices have, in fact, beentargeted at juveniles and appear to be relatively successful dealing with lessserious offenses (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1995; Wright, 1991).ON LUS ON

Mead is widely recognized as an authority on social interactions between the s lfand the other, but his analysis of crime and justice is often overlooked (for anexception see Garland, 1990). We address this lack of scholarship here bypresenting Mead s theory of crime andjustice in the context of his general theoryand by extending Mead s arguments in light of the contemporary practice ofpunitive justice.

The flaws that Mead identified with punitive justice, namely the hostileresponse to crime as an individual rather than a social problem, the failure toameliorate the causes of crime, the stigma attached to criminals, and the




11/14

80 Humanity and Society, Volume 29, Number 1 February 2005capitalist ideology that underlies the system, continue to characterize tOday scriminal justice system. These flaws, however, appear in new forms: the dramaticincrease in prison populations, the over-representation o minorities, theincreased i n r e r t i o ~ o youth, high recidivism rates, and the privatization andindustrialization o prisons. The current practice o punitive justice blames theindividual, fails to ameliorate the causes o crime, and limits the opportunities forreintegrating the criminal with the community, thereby hindering offender sreintegration into society and the reconstruction o the self.

Although the restorative justice model does not improve aU o the flawsidentified by Mead (1918), it is more conducive to the reconstruction o th selfby removing the stigma attached to offenders; involving the victims o theoffense in the reparation o harm in order to help the offender take the roleo theother and helping offenders to connect their actions with consequences (Christie,2000; Zehr, 1990); and by strengthening bonds between offenders andcommunity members (Bazemore, 1999).EN NOTESAcknowledgements: Our thanks to Connie D. Frey, Michael R. Hill , Dan Hoyt, TeelynMauney, Gary Perry and Hugh Whitt for their help in revising a draft o this paper. Thefinal fonn is our responsibility.I George Ritzer s (2000) influential textbook on sociological theory exaggerate the effecto this micro-emphasis as the only one.2 This work was developed in his own writings and in that o his students who helped10nn the Chicago school o crime and delinquency (Bennet, 1981; Faris, 1967; Galliher,1995). He also actively supported the work o sociologists at Hull-House who co-foundeda number o innovative institutions in criminology: the Juvenile Protective Association,the Juvenile Court, the Psychopathic Clinic, and the lnstitute o Juvenile Research (Mead,1999; Addams et al., 1925). These other aspects o Mead s work that are relevant to thecriminaljustice system are beyond the scope o this paper but are part o a more extendedproject.3 Mead, like Dewey, emphasized the intellectual apparatus for this new self while

Addams emphasized the embodied and practical process o generating this new self.4 Mead was active in establishing the first juvenile court in Chicago in 1899. Meadhelped select the first head o the Juvenile Psychopathic institute, William Healy; chaireda section at The Child in the City Symposium (Deegan, 1999, p.lxiv) and probablyauthored the article on juvenile delinquency Probation and Policy (1912).REFEREN ESAddams, Jane. (1910). Twenty Years t Hull House New York: Macmillan.Addams, Jane, et al., (1925). The Child the Clinic n the Court New York: New

Republic,




12/14

Elizabeth Neeley j\Jlary o Deegml 81Addams, Jane. 1930). The Second TI l enty }ears at Hull-House. New York: Macmillan.Austin, James and Barry Krisberg. 1985). Incarceration in the United States. Annals of

theAmerican Academy ofPolitical and Social Science. 479: 15 30.Bazemore, Gordon. 1998). Restorative Justice and Earned Redemption. AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 41 6): 768.

Bazemore, Gordon and Mark Umbreit 1995). Rethinking the Sanctioning Function inJuvenile Court. Crime and Delinquency, 41 3): 296-317.

Bennet, James. J981). Oral History Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Blumer Herbert. 1969). Symbolic Jmeractiom:sm. Englewood lifl\ NJ: Prentice-Hall.Brooks, Derek and Charles Sturt. 1998). Evaluating Restorative Justice Programs.

Humanity and Society. 22 l : 23-37.Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1996). State Prison Expenditures. 996. U.S. Department

of Justice.Bureau of Justice Statistics 2002). Re-entl} Trends in the United Stales. U.S.

Department of Justice.Campbell, James. 1992). The Communi ) Reconstructs. Urbana: University orJllinoisPress.Christie, Adrienne. 2000). Restorative Injustice? Masters Thesis: Carleton University,

Ontario.Cook. Gary A. 1993). George Herbert Mead: The Making o fa Social Pragmalist

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Deegan, Mary Jo. 1988). Jane Addams and the Men o the Chicago School, 1892/920.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Deegan, Mary Jo. 1999). Play from the Perspective of George Herbert Mead. Pp xix

exii in Play, School. and o c i e ~ v edited and introduced by Mary .10 Deegan.New York: Peter Lang.

Deegan, Mary Jo. 200 I). Essays i 1 Social Psycholog}:, edited and introduced by Mary JoDeegan. New Brunswick. NJ: Transaction Books.

Dewey John 1931). Memorial. Pp. JO 23 in George Herbert Mead. Chicago: Privatelyprinted pamphlet.

Ehrlich, Reese. 1995). Working for the Man. CovertAction Quarterly, 54): 1 9.Faris, Robert. 1967). Chicago Sociolog} . Chicago: Chicago University Press.Finn, Peter. March, j 998). Job Placementfor Offenders. National Institute of Justice.Feffer, Andrew. 1993). The Chicago Pragmatists and American ProgressiVism.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Galliher, John. 1995). Chicago s Two Worlds of Deviance Research. In Gary A Fine, ed.

A Second Chicago School? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Garland, David. 1990). Punishment and Modern Society Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Goffman, Erving. J 963). Stigma. England Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Han.Gordon, Avery. 1999). Globalism and the Prison Industrial Complex. Race and Class,

40 2-3): 145-147.Habennas, Jurgen. 1987). Theory ofCommunicative Action, 2nd vol. Boston: Beacon

Press.Hammond, Lisa. 2000). Drug War Policy and the Prison Industrial Complex. Societyfor

the Study af ocial Problems.Irwin, 1., Austin, J., and Baird, C I99l ). Fanning the Flames of Fear. Crime and

Delinquency, 44 1): 32-47.




13/14

82 Humanity and Society, Volume 29, Number 1 February 2005Joas, Hans. 985). GH. Mead: A Contemporary Re examination 0/His Thought. By

Raymond Meyer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Justice Policy Institute. 2002). Cellblocks or Classrooms? [online] WW\ {.justiepolicyorg.Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. 2000). Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the

American Criminal Justice System. [online]www.civilrights.gx:g/policy ...nal1 justicellj report.

Levitt, S.D. 1996). The Effects of Prison Population Size on Crime Rates. QuarterlyJournal ofEconomics CXl: 319-351.

Lewis, J. David, and Richard L Smith 1980). American Sociology and PragmatismChicago: University ofChicago Press.

Marvel, T.B. and C.E. Moody. 1994). Prison Population Growth and Crime Reduction.Journal o/Quantitative Criminology 12:109 140.

Mauer, Marc. 200I). The Causes and Consequences of Prison Growth in the UnitedStates. Punishment nd Society 3: 9-18.

Mauer, Marc and Meda Chesney-Lind. 2002). Invisible Punishment. The SentencingProject

Mauer, Marc and Tracy Huling. 1995). Young Black Americans nd the CriminalJustice System. The Sentencing Project.Mead, George Herbert 1899). The Working Hypothesis in Social Refonn. American

Journal ofSociology 5: 36771.Mead, George Herbert. 1912). Probation and Politics. Survey 27: 2003-2014.Mead, George Herbert. 1918). The Psychology of Punitive Justice. American Journal

o fSociology 23: 577-602.Mead, George Herbert. 1934). Mind el fand Society edited and introduced by Charles

Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Mead, George Herbert. 1982). The Individual nd the Social Self edited and introduced

By David Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Mead, George Herbert. 1999). Play School nd Society edited and introduced by Mary

Jo Deegan. New York: Peter Lang.Mead, George Herbert. 200I). Essays in Psychology. New Brunswick, New Jersey:Transaction.Miller, Dav id. 1973). George Herbert Mead: Self Language nd the orldChicago:

University of Chicago Press.Miller, David. 1982). Introduction. Pp 1-26 in The Individual and the Social Self by

George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Needles, Karen. 1996). o Directly to Jail and o Not Collect? A Long Term Study of

Recidivism, Employment, and Earnings Patterns Among Prison Releasees.Journal afResearch in Crime nd Delinquency 33 4): 471-497.

Ritzer, George. 2000). Contemporary Sociological Theory. 5th ed. New York: Alfred AKnop.

Schlosser, Eric. 1998). The Prison Industrial Complex. The Atlantic Monthly 282 6):51-77.

Steffensmeier, Darrel, Jeffery Ulmer, and Jolm Kramer. 1998). The Interaction of Race,Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing. Criminology 36 4): 763-797.Taylor, Christine. 2000). Victim-Offender Mediation in Juvenile Justice. Master s

Thesis.Terry, Charles. 2000). Beyond Punishment: Perpetuating Difference torm the Prison

Experience. Humanity nd Society 24 2): 108-135.




14/14

Elizabeth Neeley Mary Jo Deeg-.ln 83Tomz Julie. I996 . Prison Privatization in the United States. Overcrowded Times 7 2 :

11-14.Williams, Frank and Marilyn McShane. 1999 . Criminological heory3rd Edition.Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Wright, Martin. 1991 . Justice for Victims nd Offenders Buckingham, England: OpenUniversity.Young Cynthia. 2000 . Punishing Labor. ew Labor Forum 7: 41-52.Zehr, Howard. 1997 . Restorative Justice: The Concept: Movement SweepingCriminal JusticeField Focuseson Haon and Responsibility. Corrections oday59: 68 .Zimring, Franklin and Michael Block. 1997 . Two Views on Imprisonment PoliciesNational Institute Justice.



george h. mead on punitive justice

Documents